Search

OBJECTIVES: To (1) provide position-specific normative data for isometric cervical muscle strength and endurance in professional, male rugby players and (2) assess the relationship between age, height, weight, and playing position with cervical muscle strength and endurance. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Professional rugby players completed peak isometric cervical strength testing followed by a test of cervical muscle endurance. Descriptive statistics for continuous variables with strength normalized to body weight were performed. Multiple linear regression was used to estimate associations between strength measurements. RESULTS: In total, 136 players participated including front-row forwards (27%), other forwards (28%), and backs (45%). Front-row forwards had significantly greater peak isometric cervical muscle strength than other position groups, with backs having the lowest strength. Extension produced the highest force for all 3 position groups (429 N ± 104 N), whereas flexion produced the least (275 N ± 65 N). Age was associated with increased isometric cervical muscle strength. There was a statistically significant relationship between peak flexion strength and flexion endurance (P = .003). The average time for the endurance tests were 55.7 (±17.1) seconds and 52.9 (±20.1) seconds for extension and flexion, respectively. Other forwards had lower cervical extension muscle endurance than backs and front-row forwards. CONCLUSIONS: Normative values for peak and endurance isometric strength in professional rugby players illustrate significant differences between playing position. Consider age, body weight, and intraindividual variability when interpreting cervical strength and endurance results. J Orthop Sports Phys [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: When performing an exercise or a functional test, pain that is evoked by movement or muscle contraction could be a stronger stimulus for changing how individuals move compared to tonic pain. We investigated whether the decrease in muscle force production is larger when experimentally‐induced knee pain is directly associated to the torque produced (movement‐evoked) compared to a constant painful stimulation (tonic). Methods: Twenty‐one participants performed three isometric knee extension maximal voluntary contractions without pain (baseline), during pain, and after pain. Knee pain was induced using sinusoidal electrical stimuli at 10 Hz over the infrapatellar fat pad, applied continuously or modulated proportionally to the knee extension torque. Peak torque and contraction duration were averaged across repetitions and normalized to baseline. Results: During tonic pain, participants reported lower pain intensity during the contraction than at rest (p < 0.001), whereas pain intensity increased with contraction during movement‐evoked pain (p < 0.001). Knee extension torque decreased during both pain conditions (p < 0.001), but a larger reduction was observed during movement‐evoked compared to tonic pain (p < 0.001). Participants produced torque for longer during tonic compared to movement‐evoked pain (p = 0.005). Conclusion: Our results indicate that movement‐evoked pain was a more potent stimulus to reduce knee extension torque than tonic pain. The longer contraction time observed during tonic pain may be a result of a lower perceived pain intensity during muscle contraction. Overall, our results suggest different motor adaptation to tonic and movement‐evoked pain and support the notion that motor adaptation to pain is a purposeful strategy to limit pain. This mechanistic evidence suggests that individuals experiencing prevalently tonic or movement‐evoked pain may exhibit different motor adaptations, which may be important for exercise prescription. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]